A Theory of Sport, the Moore-Charlton Equivalency Principle and Zizou

In the last post I opined that fans, by and large, get the team they deserve. This actually follows from a general theory of sports – more strictly, sports performance – which, in turn, is derived from a theory of human performance. These will be outlined below but, first, let us pay tribute to Zizou. In doing so, we will touch on part of the Moore-Charlton Equivalency principle; specifically the latter part of it.

Unless he changes his mind (which he has done before, with respect to playing for France) July 9, 2006 will be last professional football match for Zinedine Zidane. Let us wallow in the moment and celebrate a great career. We are unlikely to see his like again – yes, even those of much less advanced age than this writer. His resurgence at this World Cup has been a delight and will likely remain the cherished memory that will become identified with the 2006 Mondiale. I say this knowing that the final chapter has not yet been written. My allegiances and my prognostications of victory are both with Italy. Despite this, should I be correct, this World Cup will be remembered as Zizou’s last bow. Just as 1970 was Pele’s. Moreover, this has been a fine World Cup with other memorable features, to name three: Ronaldo’s eclipse of Muller as all-time World Cup scorer (incidentally, Ronaldo only need 8 more goals to overtake Pele – this was also the swansong of a great striker); Ghana’s performance; and, the uplifting performance of the German team and its inspiring and admirable coach, Jurgen Klinsmann (a memorable scene was of him consoling his players, overcoming his own disappointment), which has also reflected the superb job of host carried out by the German people in general.

What is so special about Zizou? He is a unique combination of skill and strength. There have been a handful of players as skilful, a handful as strong but he is the sui generis . By strength I mean on the ball, in the tackle, in the air and in his stamina. There are those who speak in awe of the tragic Duncan Edwards in these terms. We shall never know. But that’s all the more reason to pay honour to this remarkable Frenchman. Videoturi te salute!

Among those who have spoken of the loss to football occasioned by the death of Duncan Edwards in the plane crash at Munich (not to mention most of the great Busby Babes team) is Bobby Charlton, himself a survivor of that same crash. Here’s how good Charlton was, for those who don’t know; he was even more skilful than Zidane. He also matched Zidane for the effort he put into every game he played. He just wasn’t a ballwinner. For those who doubt my assertion about skill, consider: Charlton scored 49 goals for England ( a joint record with Gary Lineker), Zidane currently 34 for France, in about the same number of games; Charlton was completely two-footed – with either foot he could hit thunderbolts, swerve a ball left and right, long and short, chip with backspin, hit long with overspin; and, without the flashy stepovers, Charlton was an even better dribbler. But, more later…

As mentioned, the general theory of sport is a direct application of the theory of human performance, which may be stated as follows: performance is conditioned by the following factors: the length of time spent at an activity; and, the nature of “culture” in relation to that activity. The latter may be unpacked further: “culture” consists of ideas, values and social arrangements. For sports this may be made more specific: sports performance for a group/nation is a matter of population, the interest in the sport, the infrastructure for the sport and the way people think about the sport (the specific small-c “culture”).

A Tale of Two Owens

Among its other virtues, football is like democracy; on the whole, fans get the teams (and media) that they deserve. Which may be why England will never again win the World Cup; 1966 is looking more and more like an aberration. Scanning the many blogs and comment sites it is apparent that, overwhelmingly, English fans are not able to distinguish the merely adequate from the good, the good from the great. However, the more revealing reactions are those of the press, which uniformly blames Eriksson, the target of its six-year vendetta, which followed the vendetta against Keegan and Taylor and is soon to be replaced by the vendetta against Maclaren.

The national obsession with Wayne Rooney has reaped its due reward. He’s a good but not great player and he wasn’t fit for the World Cup and should not have been on the squad. He was simply lamentable throughout, culminating in his sorry exit from the Portugal game. The collective denial over his performance was amazing. Far from suffering alone “up front” from a lack of support Rooney was where attacks went to die. His last 3 minutes on the pitch were telling. Lennon set him up in the box after a piece of dazzling skill and pace (by Lennon) and Rooney almost whiffed (with his healthy but weaker left foot) on the shot; Joe Cole slid in to the sliced effort and nearly scored. I must have seen 60 or more hours of Rooney for United and I’ve never seen him whiff even on far more difficult shots. Shortly after he lost control for the umpteenth time at midfield and flopped around trying desperately to get the ball back at the end of which he lunged onto Carvalho, knocking him over, and planted his foot in Carvalho’s privates as he got up. (If you look at the replay in slow-mo it looks like his hand goes into the crotch area just before he lunges!) Stunningly, he did this right in front of the ref! No video replay can ever yield as good a view as that afforded Senor Elizondo. I’ve opined elsewhere that Eriksson was forced into this but his quixotic choice of Walcott must go down as one of the more rash choices any major team manager has made.

British fandom’s views on the two Owens – Owen Hargreaves and Michael Owen – are just as revealing. Michael Owen is a great (but injury-prone) striker but underappreciated in the Rooney-mania that has dominated English media and fandom for the past year or so. It was his loss that was crucial. A fit Owen would have scored against Portugal sparing the team the embarrassment of penalty-kicks. Owen Hargreaves has finally been allowed to reveal his true colours – as a midfield powerhouse – after suffering criticism for years by media and fans. Hargreaves also exemplifies a quality not understood by the majority of English fans and media: effort is one thing, well-directed effort is another. The contrast with Rooney could not be greater. Fans love Rooney for his obvious effort; no one works harder than Hargreaves but a lot of it is invisible except to those who are watching him specifically. He moves purposefully all the time: filling space to close off options; pursuing his man with relentless determination when that is appropriate; moving into space to support the attack or provide options. None of the bull-in-a-china-shop antics that earned Rooney his red card. I’ve said this elsewhere but, more than ever, England are never going to win without another Bobby Charlton or some equivalent (which I’d hoped, forlornly, that Lampard-Gerrard might be). No-one worked harder than Charlton (no not even Nobby); it just didn’t look that way.

France showed that this version of the great Brazilian powerhouse was not up to the expected standards. Too many older players who, although still good enough to play for most teams, were too much for Kaka and Ronaldinho to carry. France had too many ballwinners in midfield. Ronaldinho is the best creative player in the World but is not a ballwinner. Zizou’s last hurrah shows what a unique player he has been because he combines creativity that was Ronaldinho’s equal in his prime with strength. Add Makelele and Vieira and that’s just too much. Brazil has relied on Cafu and Carlos Roberto to supplement the midfield and they’ve “gone back” a bit too much. Reflecting on Zizou, I realize I overestimated Gerrard; I’m still an admirer but he’s never going to be Zizou. I note in passing that France’s goal was a result of that commentators’ chestnut – slack marking. There was a Brazilian whose # I couldn’t make out at the edge of the box (it may have been Ronaldinho) when Henry made his run who should have read the situation and gone with him. He would likely have still scored but it was bad slip-up.

There’s an obvious way to reduce diving and general theatrics. At least at future World Cup tourneys. Assess players on video evidence after each game; those found to have faked a foul or exaggerated injury more than 3 times get a yellow that carries into their next game, those with 6 miss the next game. Video evidence on such matters can now be 100%. As a further suggestion – and I’ve not done the empirical analysis to back this up – would be for all leagues to up the % ex-pros and semi-pros among the ranks of refs. It’s very obvious that some of these refs – hard to believe for a World tournament – have never played at any level; they mistake bad tackles for mistimed tackles randomly. Even a pro would have trouble dealing with the fakery in real time – but would be fooled far less – hence there’s still a need for the video-review discipline.

As a footnote, FS (Fred) Trueman died on the weekend. I will never forget seeing Trueman for Yorkshire and Statham for Lancashire when the Roses still meant something. I’ve lauded Statham elsewhere; as much as I don’t want to admit it, FS was slightly better, which is to say only just behind Marshall and Lindwall. Trueman’s runup and action were a sight to behold; flowing grace and menace joined. Only Wes Hall compares. Trueman was also the first sports figure that I remember to make the point that sports smarts are not the same as school smarts. His era was still the era of the occasional “gentleman” or amateur player and he noted how several such bowlers of his acquaintance could bowl quite well but couldn’t get anyone out because they didn’t understand the importance of variation and analyzing a batsman’s technique. Needless to say, Fred was a master. The most famous example: when Fred bowled out a great West Indies lineup at Edgbaston by reducing his pace and bowling stock off-cutters. Coming full-circle, this is what most fans and media don’t understand about Rooney and Beckham. They’re both smart players (lovely layoffs and weighted short passes, adroit positioning etc. – “football smart” players still do dumb things); fan and media attention are directed toward what they aren’t – Rooney isn’t a great dribbler and Beckham isn’t the true World Class midfielder (like Zizou) that they wanted him to be. For Beckham it’s too late to appreciate him for what he was – a smart player with a fabulous right foot who was always well worth his shop. For Rooney, if he could only be appreciated for what he is, realistically, and not what he isn’t – Pele!, Best! Maradona! – he may become part of an England team that gets somewhere at the Euros. I wouldn’t put any money on it.